How is it compare to nikon 35mm f/1.8g af-s dx?
39228
It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to... » Read More It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. « Show Less
39229
If your are deciding between a 35mm and this lens.. I would ask.. What do you plan to shoot? If you need a wide lens for landscapes I suggest the 18 - 50... If you are looking for a portrait or low fstop fixed lense for close ups I say go with the 1.8 35mm. If your asking Nikon versus sigma.. I would say you get what you pay for. As far as the sigma performance... I use the lense quite often. I shoot in low light bars and venues and the lens is covered in beer..The lens is great for low light shooting at 18mm. I usually switch to a 50mm if I need a closer shot.
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
1041292
I agree with the 35 F1.4 response. It is a very sharp lens and with the sale, it's priced great. WELL worth the $.
1939951
f 1.4. You can take photos in lower light than the 1.8. Just an FYI, if I had to do it again, I would have bought a 35 mm 1.4 instead of the 50 mm.
1370588
Exactly. It should be noted that it's sharp and CA-free at 1.2 as well. If Canon or Nikon made a 1.8 this good, I'd be stoked.
1204900
This is a late post, but for those who have the same question: Nikon's 35mm f/1.8G DX and 55mm 1.8mm f/1.8G lenses are great choices, and can save all but a couple hundred bucks. You will have to move around more than with the zoom, but expect zero distortion as your reward.
814300
The 85mm 1.8 would obviously have less depth of field when opened up, which may be useful to throw the background out of focus for portraits. The 3.5 is also macro, great for close focusing for small objects. I got it because it seemed to be a good compromise. I use it both ways. If the macro function were not important to me I probably would have gotten the 1.8 although it's also more money.
241544
I have the 85 f1.8D and 35 f2D and they are fantastic. The two lenses you mention should be even better. The 35 is such a versatile focal length, I have been using as my all purpose lens.
2123334
If you don't mind doing everything in manual and you don't mind soft and fuzzy pics then, yes Otherwise, save your money and buy the Nikkor 16=35mm. Great lens and worth every penny. Buy once, cry once!
19332
Thirding the question. Is there any new element and is the optical quality the same? How would a better lens be cheaper than the previous version?
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
543325
No comparison! This lens even out performs Canon's 1.4 in most areas! One area it really blows a lot 50mm out of the water in is bokeh quality! It has 9 round blades that make a heck of difference and give it it's quality D.O.F. and bokeh. Some have compared it's build quality and performance more closer to Canon's 50mm 1.2L. I'm a fashion and beauty photographer and use this lens quite often, and I can confidently stand behind this glass! If you can buy it, buy it! To see some of the photos I've taken with this lens visit my site: www.richardanthonyevans.com.
767796
Before answering, I tried the lens on a D70s. The lens works perfectly. I would, however, bring to your attention that this is an FX lens and the D70 has a DX crop sensor. As a result, this lens has will be closer to a 35mm field of view on a DX camera. The description indicates 84 degrees FX but about 60 degrees DX. If you do not need the features of this lens (aperture ring, etc.) and are simply seeking a 35mm lens, consider the 35mm 1.8 DX for about 60% of the price. Otherwise, I use this lens a great deal and my only real frustration is its tendency to ghost. It ranges from F/2.8-f/22, is metal and is small enough to drop into your pocket. Before answering, I tried the lens on a D70s. The lens works perfectly. I would, however, bring to your attention that this is an FX lens and the D70 has a DX crop sensor. As a result, this lens has will be closer to a 35mm field of view on a DX camera. The description indicates 84 degrees FX but about 60 degrees DX. If you do not need the features of this lens (aperture ring, etc.) and are simply seeking a 35mm lens, consider the 35mm 1.8 DX for about 60% of the price. Otherwise, I use this lens a great deal and my only real frustration is its tendency to ghost. It ranges from F/2.8-f/22,... » Read More Before answering, I tried the lens on a D70s. The lens works perfectly. I would, however, bring to your attention that this is an FX lens and the D70 has a DX crop sensor. As a result, this lens has will be closer to a 35mm field of view on a DX camera. The description indicates 84 degrees FX but about 60 degrees DX. If you do not need the features of this lens (aperture ring, etc.) and are simply seeking a 35mm lens, consider the 35mm 1.8 DX for about 60% of the price. Otherwise, I use this lens a great deal and my only real frustration is its tendency to ghost. It ranges from F/2.8-f/22, is metal and is small enough to drop into your pocket. « Show Less
1910672
i'm testing the camera and 35mm 1.8G, please see test videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsE5YLzKkSEplease subscribe for more video test
382376
35mm f1.8 is better for multipurpose and I use it all the times now and no complaint at all
575774
Well I think 1.8 is ultra fast (vs 4), so I would use it in a particular situation if I had that lens.
1796675
It is a slight bit better than the 50mm 1.4...way better than the 18-55. It's not up to an L lens quality but it does slightly beat out the build of my 50mm 1.4